I'm willing to give beaglebuddy's the benefit of doubt about the posted quotes being true. However, what we don't know is the context of the discourse in which the quotes were made. To be fair, it would be important to share that.

Here is fake one for you.
" I deeply regret accepting a million plus a year salary from gunmakers for turning a respectable gun club into the marketing arm for them.
We have lied shamelessly by claiming to support the enforcement of current gun laws while spending hundreds of millions each year trying to overturn them and causing the US to have the highest gun death rate in the world.
My only defense is that we do this in public because our members are too brainwashed to object to our lying in their faces
Fake quotes are just a small part of the way we treat our supporters like the sheep they appear to be."
Pierre at NRA

So have I ... until extensive drug testing of welfare recipients in FL and one other state (AZ?) recently revealed an extremely tiny rate nowhere NEAR cost-effectiveness. Now I'd want to see more research before calling for it.

I read the story and I came up with a different conclusion.

Here's one of many articles on the subject:
http://tinyurl.com/dxq3twf
It begins:
TALLAHASSEE — Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants, data used against the state in an ongoing legal battle shows ... only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed.

Another twist on it:
Does Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Save Money?
Seven states have enacted drug testing for welfare applicants in an effort to cut costs and combat fraud -- but it’s not clear the move does either.

BY: Alan Greenblatt | July 2012

A total of seven states have enacted drug testing or screening laws for welfare applicants over the past two years (Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah this year; Florida and Missouri in 2011). Although courts have been skeptical about such laws, legislators say they don’t want taxpayer money to subsidize illegal behavior. “If you have enough money to buy drugs, then you don’t need the public assistance,” Colorado state Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg told the Associated Press.

Opponents of such laws say they end up backfiring in a couple of ways. Numerous states have performed drug screenings of welfare applicants for years, says LaDonna Pavetti of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in hopes of guiding them into treatment and making them more employable. The new round of laws, she suggests, is more punitive and will turn people away from treatment.

[Editorial comment: that's freaking tough. Honest, sober people have to put forth some effort to get their money; why shouldn't the same apply to welfare recipients? What are they ... Jabba the Hut or the plant from "Little Shop of Horrors" shouting "Feed Me"?]

She also argues that it will cost a lot of money to test everybody in order to find a small number of users. The Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union recently showed that drug testing actually cost the state money. The $30 spent per test ended up costing an aggregate of $45,000 more than the state saved in welfare payments.

But those figures were misleading, says Tarran Bragdon, president of the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, which backed the Florida law. Once a judge blocked it and made the state pay out benefits retroactively, costs grew quickly.

In other words, if legislators can come up with a drug-testing regimen that passes legal muster -- which has proven difficult for more than one state -- they may see a net savings. But sponsors of these bills insist that while cost savings are nice, these measures are really about changing behaviors. “Benefit payments that have been wasted on drug abusers will be available for the truly needy,” says Oklahoma state Rep. Guy Liebmann, “and addicts will be incentivized to get treatment.”

I'm not for drug testing a welfare applicant. More likely once they've been on it for a year. Acceptance of long term welfare destroys human potential. The more time that passes, the more potential stolen from that person.

In my youth, I worked for a company that had HUD and Section 8 housing. I saw 1st hand what these kinds of programs do to people. Drug abuse was rampant. Hollow sad humans that were born with potential now useless.

As for the mom who didn't store her guns correctly, even though she'd contacted police and mental health professionals about her crazy son. She had an epic failure to protect herself and the public. This can easily be corrected with training and safety locks. Every new gun sold in Cal already has a safety lock included in the box.

To me, this typifies the false notion peddled by some in the GOP that wrongly attempts to equate banning certain guns with a government overreach at best and an erosion of not only the 2nd Amendment but other rights as well. Sen. Cruz was grandstanding a bit too much and had his lunch handed to him by Senators Feinstein and Leahy.

Why can't people understand that the least convincing argument on nearly any issue is that of the slippery slope. I hold no issue with honest, open debate about constitutional matters, but feel like crying when Senators attempt to rewrite about 200 years of jurisprudence while knowing their reasoning is false.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum